Skip to main content

About your Search

20130801
20130831
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)
neil: now we can safely say the nsa more than just kind of broke the law. try thousands of times. welcome, everybody. i'm neil cavuto. not just fine. don't take it for me. take it from despise himself. an internal audit out of no less than the national curity agency it's often define 200776 violations of established court orders regarding surveillance on americans, are targets in this country. with the nsa demands in a speech read what anyone else would call ridiculous. hundreds of cases of supposedly unintended interception of u.s. e-mail and phone calls and typographical errors that prompted overly aggressive searches. this group for one thing, not responding to them or even reporting them is quite another. it's not only sloppy but illegal and now we come to find that the smartest intelligence surveillance court that is supposed to keep an eye on them to not even learn about some of these violations until months after the fact willing among constituonal which is kind of like locking the barn door after all the animals left. my friends, step back and ponder the sheer magnitude o
the text, and nsa on the prowl. >> no, no, no, look, it makes sense in terms of tort law. were they to allow this if you couldn't know -- neil: you're a lawyer; right? >> i am. causation is a very real concept in tort law. listen, from a practical point of view -- neil: how about big government creeps? now, not only to the driver, but anyone communicating with that driver. >> if they know the driver's driving? neil: how do you think they know? how do you think they will know? >> two ways. one way is -- neil: give us your phone. >> thanks a lot, i don't want to hand over the phone. >> let me answer. one way is ed. we have that in situations. there's evidence. if there's no evidence, then you're not going to be spobl. evidence, and that comes out in the court. if they put you on the stand and you were the one texting, and they asked you the questions, saying, did you know that person was driving at the time you were texting to them? if you say, yes, then we know. the other way is a possibility. they may look at your phone. >> oh, my. neil: that's the first way. >> exactly. >> tha
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)